D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Yaarel]

But maybe more to the point, I’d view each d&d world as a separate game.

I wouldn’t say “separate”, because they all use the core rules. But yeah, each setting stands on its own and can be a different genre and a different way to experience D&D. Now 5e core requires each table to actively choose which setting to use, whether serendipity homebrew or purchased product.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wouldn’t say “separate”, because they all use the core rules. But yeah, each setting stands on its own and can be a different genre and a different way to experience D&D. Now 5e core requires each table to actively choose which setting to use, whether serendipity homebrew or purchased product.

Right. But each of those settings can have their own setting mechanics as well. I think talking about core d&d 5e is useful, but as a full picture of the game, it’s incomplete.

Systems that leave less gaps here (in this example they define their world, but it could be any kind of gap) are going to have more consistent play experiences.

 

[AlViking]

Right. But each of those settings can have their own setting mechanics as well. I think talking about core d&d 5e is useful, but as a full picture of the game, it’s incomplete.

Systems that leave less gaps here (in this example they define their world, but it could be any kind of gap) are going to have more consistent play experiences.

I view the variety of experiences in D&D to be a strength, not a weakness. I don't want a world predefined for me when I DM, when I play in someone else's world it's fun to discover what direction they went. Meanwhile other groups can have settings that wouldn't work for me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Perhaps.

But I have found in every single case, in my own personal experience, where a player's response to others' ire is "but it's what my character would do!!", it is being used as a blatant fig-leaf excuse for behavior that was knowingly disruptive, harmful, and in violation of the group's play expectations--usually ones that had been explicitly spelled out.

How would you be able to tell the difference?

Yes, I do think it is possible--much less likely than 1%, more like one in a million--for a player to be engaging perfectly in good faith, following motives that up until this moment have been perfectly fine, to coincidentally fall into a situation where it is so difficult to come up with a reasonable response that wouldn't be disruptive, that the player has no other choice. But in such a situation, the player would not launch into that behavior, and then try to justify it after the fact with "but it's what my character would do!" They would instead start from the outset with an out-of-character discussion, explaining "look guys, I cannot see ANY way out of this that wouldn't do something likely to upset someone. Can we talk about that?"

Because no player has ever unjustifiably got aggravated with another’s play simply because they didn’t like the final outcome?

Because every player playing in good faith is a great communicator in the meta channels?

I think you are demanding qualities here that aren’t specific to anyone playing a character meant to gel with the party, but might not in every conceivable circumstance in good faith.

Under those circumstances, there is no need to make an excuse, fig-leaf or otherwise, because the player is going in clear-eyed and is doing the appropriate thing, getting out in front of the problematic scene, signposting it, and looking for alternatives or at least ways to soften the blow. If none can be found, even with the whole group collaborating, then what happens, happens. I've never seen such a situation, but I admit that it's at least theoretically possible, albeit exceedingly rare.

Sure. I’ll grant its rarity.

In the vast majority of situations, however? It's a player being a tool and thinking they can get away with it because they have a perfect, unassailable excuse when it's actually an admission of fault.

Right. It’s why I said I think you went too far instead of I disagree.

 

[FrogReaver]

I view the variety of experiences in D&D to be a strength, not a weakness. I don't want a world predefined for me when I DM, when I play in someone else's world it's fun to discover what direction they went. Meanwhile other groups can have settings that wouldn't work for me.

I do as well. It’s back to pros and cons though. Consistency in each instance of play vs greater flexibility in experiences we can achieve. I can see how that consistency might be more important to some and from a game design perspective would be much easier to design for.

 

[Enrahim]

Right. But each of those settings can have their own setting mechanics as well. I think talking about core d&d 5e is useful, but as a full picture of the game, it’s incomplete.

Systems that leave less gaps here (in this example they define their world, but it could be any kind of gap) are going to have more consistent play experiences.

I would say my fellow GM and players are much more impactful on the kind of play experience I have than both the system and the setting. Do that mean they also are central to what makes a game, and that all published "games" (in the TTRPG sphere) is incomplete due to them not coming bundled with friends to play the game with?

 

[Yaarel]

Right. But each of those settings can have their own setting mechanics as well. I think talking about core d&d 5e is useful, but as a full picture of the game, it’s incomplete.

Systems that leave less gaps here (in this example they define their world, but it could be any kind of gap) are going to have more consistent play experiences.

I like the 2024 approach. The “default” setting would be Greyhawk in the DMs Guide, but even this is an active choice. I prefer D&D emphasizing worldbuilding, whose only limits are imagination.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would say my fellow GM and players are much more impactful on the kind of play experience I have than both the system and the setting. Do that mean they also are central to what makes a game, and that all published "games" (in the TTRPG sphere) is incomplete due to them not coming bundled with friends to play the game with?

On the incomplete question - Maybe. Maybe not. I’m less sure on that point. To some degree the mix of players on a basketball team changes how they play, but that’s strategic and tactical and not on the game level, or the match between the Chicago and Boston is a different experience than Chicago and L.A but that’s again not on the game level.

Perhaps the best analogy we have from basketball would be refs and fouls. It’s a judgement call (aka gap) and a basketball game where the refs call virtually any contact a foul vs only severe contact a foul are much different games IMO. That’s more akin to what I view players applying principles to the judgement calls they make for the gaps in RPGs as doing.

 

[AlViking]

I do as well. It’s back to pros and cons though. Consistency in each instance of play vs greater flexibility in experiences we can achieve. I can see how that consistency might be more important to some and from a game design perspective would be much easier to design for.

I agree that you could have rules more tailored to a specific world or theme. I'm just not sure how much of a "pro" that is. I guess it depends on what the goals are, in the case of D&D it's to appeal to a broad audience. If you want to recreate the feel of a specific line of novels or a TV series focused rules make more sense.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree that you could have rules more tailored to a specific world or theme. I'm just not sure how much of a "pro" that is. I guess it depends on what the goals are, in the case of D&D it's to appeal to a broad audience. If you want to recreate the feel of a specific line of novels or a TV series focused rules make more sense.

Or if you just want to design a game that should play similar no matter the table, making it easier to join random games and get what you want out of them.